I keep thinking about one of the opening lines of Earth. The narrator, James Earl Jones, says the earth is perfectly angled to the sun, 23 degrees, to sustain life. Actually, our axial tilt varies from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees. But it really is an amazing thing the way our planet is precariously yet perfectly positioned to sustain life. And there is no margin for error. Planet Earth is 93 million miles from the sun. If we were just 1% closer or further from the sun, the climate changes could disrupt our Eco-equilibrium making Earth uninhabitable. On top of that, our atmosphere is the perfect combination of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%) with traces of carbon dioxide, argon, hydrogen, helium, and other gases. If the oxygen percentage were just a few percentage points higher, we'd be highly flammable.
So here's the question: is this the result of random chance or Intelligent Design? I know it takes faith either way, but I honestly think it takes more faith to believe it's all random. Of course, the curious thing is that those of us that believe in an Intelligent Designer or Creator are often put on the defensive as if we're the only ones operating on faith.
For what it's worth, Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle once said in an address to the British Academy of Science, "Let’s be scientifically honest. The probability of life arising to greater and greater complexity by chance through evolution is the same probability as having a tornado tear through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747 jetliner." I love that imagery. He calculated the chances of life being the result of random chance as 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.
So here's the question: is this the result of random chance or Intelligent Design? I know it takes faith either way, but I honestly think it takes more faith to believe it's all random. Of course, the curious thing is that those of us that believe in an Intelligent Designer or Creator are often put on the defensive as if we're the only ones operating on faith.
For what it's worth, Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle once said in an address to the British Academy of Science, "Let’s be scientifically honest. The probability of life arising to greater and greater complexity by chance through evolution is the same probability as having a tornado tear through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747 jetliner." I love that imagery. He calculated the chances of life being the result of random chance as 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.
14 Comments:
If we could all have a little more faith it would change the earth.
Playing the devil's advocate, couldn't evolutionists argue that this is putting the cart before the horse? Perhaps life adapted itself to being sustainable at 23% (and only 23%) because that’s where the earth is positioned. When you say that any change would make Earth uninhabitable, you’re really saying that Earth would be uninhabitable for life forms that evolved to live in our current environment. If Earth had been created 50 degrees warmer, would we have adapted to that instead?
Just suppose...if we were made of a greater percentage of oxygen, how many fewer people would have taken up smoking.
Just a thought...
Intelligent designer, creator, god, jeebus.
All these words have one meaning and one meaning only: a magic fairy.
There's no magic in the universe. Any child who has not been brainwashed with religious stupidity could figure that out.
Bob,
I'd love to hear your cosmological explanation for the origin of the universe. How do you believe it happened? And don't tell me about the initial chemical reactions that randomly sparked. Tell me where the chemicals came from. Tell me where the spark came from.
And for what it's worth, I don't believe in a magic fairy. I believe in the Omnipotent Creator of the Universe who with four words, let their be light, spoke the universe into existence. I do however like tinkerbell in Peter Pan, but that is fiction.
Mark
"I'd love to hear your cosmological explanation for the origin of the universe."
This is where religious people like to stick their god-of-the-gaps. I prefer scientific explanations. For gaps in human knowledge I prefer to say "I don't know" or "who gives a shit", which is a lot more honest than making wild guesses about some god monster.
Your "spoke the universe into existence" is one heck of a magic trick.
Instead of invoking magic to solve a scientific problem, scientists say "Let's get to work and find out what really happened."
Your solution, the magic fairy did it, is a lazy excuse to not think.
It's for a good reason most Christians are scientifically illiterate. Why bother studying science when it's so much easier to invoke magic?
By the way, calling your magic fairy a "Omnipotent Creator of the Universe" doesn't make that idea any less childish and idiotic.
Tyler asked "If Earth had been created 50 degrees warmer, would we have adapted to that instead?"
If life got a foothold on another planet that was much warmer than our planet, that life would have evolved and adapted to that different environment.
So Tyler, your idea was excellent. You can think, unlike some people I know.
For what it's worth, Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle once said in an address to the British Academy of Science, "Let’s be scientifically honest. The probability of life arising to greater and greater complexity by chance through evolution is the same probability as having a tornado tear through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747 jetliner."
I never heard of Hoyle but I would say that he's an idiot (if he really said that and if your quote mining out of context didn't distort what he meant). I notice Christians like to quote mine scientists which is usually an extremely dishonest thing to do.
The probability of life on earth is exactly one, because life is here. It happened. And only a god-soaked ignorant Christian would think supernatural intervention had anything to do with it.
"by chance through evolution" is a dishonest thing to say because there's nothing random about natural selection, which selects what works. What doesn't work disappears. What works accumulates. It's a bloody simple concept. Calling it "chance" only shows the person doesn't know what he's talking about.
Of course good luck and bad luck has always been a part of the history of life. Any number of events, if they didn't happen, or if they happened differently, could have prevented the development of human apes from our ancient ape ancestors, and could have prevented the development of the first primates from their small mammal ancestors.
Yes, part of it was chance, but it happened, and every god ever invented didn't have anything to do with it.
There is no magic in the universe.
Bob,
Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Worth thinking about. I'm a both/and thinker. I love God. I love science. I see absolutely no contradiction.
A few thoughts...
First of all, you didn't even attempt to answer my question. And the reason is that you don't have an answer that doesn't sound silly because your only answer is that everything came from nothing. And that contradicts all the laws of science that you supposedly espouse. Just being straight-up.
Second, using a cuss word or referring to God as a "magic fairy" doesn't sound smart or scientific.
Third, I've got two masters degrees and a doctorate so that non-educated argument sort of breaks down doesn't it?
Here's a question I think you should ask yourself, if I can be so bold. Why are you so angry at the thought of God? You seem upset at me for believing that God created the universe. Why? I think it's deeper than simply disagreeing. I think you don't like the implications of God's existence.
Mark
I liked this post and put it on my blog with the title "747 From Scratch."
Late last night a friend called laughing at my title. He thought it was my ultimate typo. It read. "747 Front Scratch." Yikes.
This morning I was scanning Google Reader and saw the original post. I had typed "From Scratch" after all. Someone hijacked my Typepad account.
Ironically, they proved the point. Even the letter "m" cannot change to "nt" without an intelligent designer.
Hilarious. Thanks for a gut laugh! Too funny.
Now quit scratching and get back to work!
Mark
I personally believe that God used evolution as a designing tool to create life on this planet. Dr. Francis Collins has a excellent book on the topic entitled "The Language of God".
Oh, and apparently that 1 x 10 to the 40,000th power calculation is inaccurate. Just thought I'd let you know...
RBF,
Sometimes I forget my footnotes. I remember reading that Hoyle quote and stat in a book a few years ago. I suppose it's possible they mis-cited it. That happens even with the best of editors. But I love the 747 analogy! Classic.
Thanks for the comment.
Mark
Those who know don't talk.
Those who talk don't know.
Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
Peace!
(from the Tao De Ching)
A must read book on this topic is "Life is a Miracle" by Wendell Berry, written as a rebuttal to E.O. Wilson's "Consilience." Two scholarly men, with two fabulous perspectives for explanation.
Can science and religion co-exist? I believe they can, and maybe we would all be better off if we just admitted our biases and moved toward a common ground in "faith."
-----
Science has to do, famously, with theory. "Theory," at root, is related to the word "theater"; it has to do with watching with observation. A scientific theory is an aid to observation. It involves assumptions that appear to be consistent with known facts. It is not proven; it is useful because it may lead to evidence or to proofs.
Science also involves prediction. Prediction is a highly disciplined concept when it is used in relation to the methodology of proof: A thing is true only if it is predictably true; a thing is true, not because it is true now, but because it is true always. But in the hands of such "scientists" as meteorologists and economists, whose putative usefulness depends directly upon their ability to predict and whose prediction are frequently wrong, the meaning of prediction begins to slide from science toward journalism. The same slide occurs when scientists, on the basis of early results, predict the success of a course of experimentation. Alert readers of newspapers will certainly have noticed the frequency of reports that scientists "may have" discovered something or other, or that new data "may prove" something or other. Journalists, and apparently some scientists also, are partial to new stories beginning "Scientists foresee" or "Scientists predict."
This seems to come from abuse of faith, which is another essential attribute of science. There is a sort of scientific faith that is legitimate. It is hard to see how the work of science could be done if scientists did not have faith of the highest sort, obviously, but is akin to the unproven confidence with which we non-scientists face the unknowns of our own workdays. But under various suasions of profession and personality, this legitimate faith in scientific methodology seems to veer off into a kind of religious faith in the power of science to know all things and solve all problems, where upon the scientist may become an evangelist and go forth to save the world."
-Wendell Berry
"Life is a Miracle" pg 18-19
Post a Comment
<< Home